Books

25 October 2005

In the few short years of its existence, Google has come a long way, simultaneously striking fear in the hearts of major players in the computer industry and also arousing their curiosity.

Its search engine is so ubiquitous that “to Google” somebody or something is now part of the lexicon of hard-core knowledge workers and casual web users alike. Google also has become a gateway to the Internet and taken steps to develop desktop applications, such as Google Toolbar and Google Desktop, not to mention other products like Gmail and Google Earth. The company's initial public offering was a big success and its stock has risen ever since. What, everyone wonders, will Google be up to next?

While Google, of Mountain View, Calif., is keeping all competitors on their toes, it poses a special threat to one particular company — Microsoft. Why? Because Google's existing and potential products — as well as those of other firms — raise the specter that the behemoth of Redmond, Wash., may witness the erosion of its control over the platform for the next generation of software application development, according to Wharton faculty members who follow the technology sector.

But being a threat — even a formidable threat — is one thing. Actually beating Microsoft would be a different accomplishment altogether, the Wharton experts agree, and only time will tell how this David-and-Goliath-style rivalry will fully shake out.

Microsoft's concern over Google has been evident recently on several fronts. Microsoft recently announced a major reorganization designed to streamline the company's huge bureaucracy and make the firm more nimble — a move that the Wharton scholars say was in direct response to fear of continued inroads made by competitors, especially Google, on Microsoft's turf. Microsoft has also suffered the embarrassment of watching key employees defect to Google. Most recently, on Oct. 4, Sun Microsystems and Google announced a partnership to distribute each other's software, a deal that is viewed as another assault on Microsoft. Among other things, the Google Toolbar for web browsers will be a standard component of the software that computer users receive when they download Sun's Java software.

But the central challenge to Microsoft goes beyond corporate reorganizations, defecting employees or the popularity of Google's search engine as a gateway to the web, according to Kendall Whitehouse, senior director of information technology at Wharton. Microsoft's success has been due in large part to its realization two decades ago that control of the operating system on personal computers would give it a great amount of leverage over PCs, he says. Most companies in the 1980s saw the operating system as a pure commodity product, but Microsoft understood that it held the keys to the kingdom.

“It's because of the dominance of the Windows operating system that Microsoft has been able to become so strong,” Whitehouse notes. “The dominance of Windows means that if you're a developer of a major software application, you need to deliver a product for Windows. This means software developers must use the programming capabilities provided by Windows — its application programming interface, or API.”

But many in the computer business have long believed that the core platform could be moved to a higher level, that technology gurus could establish a web-based platform that runs in the browser and is written in the language of the browser rather than the language of the operating system.

“This was the dream of Marc Andreessen [co-founder of browser company Netscape Communications] and others back in the mid-1990s when Andreessen boasted that the web would reduce computer operating systems to nothing more than 'a poorly debugged set of device drivers,'” Whitehouse recalls. “And this is why Microsoft responded so aggressively to the threat of Netscape after [Microsoft Chairman] Bill Gates issued his famous memo warning of an Internet 'tidal wave' that threatened Windows. Netscape didn't succeed. Microsoft managed to thwart Netscape's attempt to establish a new platform on the web.”

How, specifically, do innovations at Google threaten Microsoft? Whitehouse points, for example, to Google Maps. The API of Google Maps lets developers embed Google Maps in their own web pages using JavaScript. A visit to http://www.googlemapsmania.blogspot.com/ — which bills itself as an unofficial Google Maps blog tracking the websites, ideas and tools being influenced by Google Maps — shows a long list of applications built using Google Maps as the underlying engine.

Google is not the only company offering products and services that run on a web platform. Feeling the heat, Microsoft has already announced products to compete with those of Adobe (developer of the PDF document format) and Macromedia (developer of Flash and ShockWave software for video and animation), which announced a merger earlier this year. “To the extent that PDF and the Flash SWF file format could be an emerging platform for web application development,” Whitehouse notes, “Microsoft has to be worried.”

A Commodity Product?

It is important to note, Whitehouse adds, that “all the applications I have talked about are written in the web browser. They work equally well on Windows, Mac or Linux. Your computer still needs an operating system to run — but it doesn't matter which one. The operating system may eventually become the commodity that people in the 1980s thought it would be, and that's bad news for Microsoft.”

Thomas Y. Lee, professor of operations and information management, sees Google's challenge to Microsoft in broader terms. “I don't know that I would say Google is a threat to the operating system, per se, but it is a threat to Microsoft's business model. Microsoft has software [such as Office] that they use to leverage the operating system.”

Lee says Google benefits from two key strengths. The company gives free rein to talented people to innovate and it encourages program developers to use Google as the basis for products of their own. “Google has hired really, really smart people. Some of the smartest graduates coming out of the top computer science programs are going to Google. When you put that many smart people in one place, neat things happen. Google also has not been threatened by people working off their products. Look at all the product extensions that are tied to Google Maps.”

Balaji Padmanabhan, professor of operations and information management at Wharton, agrees with Whitehouse that “there is a move toward PCs that don't have a lot of software installed on them, where most applications can run off a network.” Padmanabhan notes that Sun Microsystems and Oracle developed such a system, in which people using nothing more than a simple PC would wirelessly communicate with a central computer.

“But that idea never really took off, to a large extent because the network was not as large and as fast as it is today,” says Padmanabhan. “Yet there are advantages to that concept — less software to update for users, for one thing, and that's exactly what Google would capitalize on. The second advantage is PC users get better security, since apps can be constantly updated on a server to fix errors and add patches. The big challenge is the reliability of the network. You don't want to get into a situation where users want to open a spreadsheet program but can't because the network isn't up right now. That is certainly an issue that will have to get resolved down the road.”

Legal studies professor Kevin Werbach asserts that the competitive issues facing Microsoft go beyond Google. “At some level, any successful Internet and software company is a threat to Microsoft,” he says. “Microsoft is in a uniquely dominant position in the computing ecosystem. Anything that attracts a significant amount of use or activity is potentially a threat to them. Microsoft is a threat to, in some ways, virtually everyone in the industry and likewise everyone is a threat to Microsoft.”

Werbach says that Microsoft is in such a powerful position because the PC operating system is at the center of most users' experiences with computers. As the Internet becomes more of an essential part of the computing experience, if anything else from a network becomes a central link in the user's experience, that poses a challenge to Windows and software programs like Office, which has higher profit margins than Windows itself. “Google does not prevent people from using any particular operating system on a PC,” he says, “but if the functionality that users engage with is driven through a Google experience rather than something controlled by Microsoft, that harms Microsoft.”

The Task Ahead

“The big challenge for Microsoft is the law of large numbers,” Werbach notes. “It's harder and harder for the company, as it gets bigger, to keep growing as it historically did. The computer industry is a mature industry. In the developed world, virtually everyone has a computer. So Microsoft, to continue growing, needs to find new ways to expand its market, which is why they want to get into games, wireless and business-software markets. In these areas they're generating substantial losses. To the extent that Google becomes a dominant player in the Internet market, it blocks an opportunity for Microsoft to expand.”

But Microsoft did not achieve the position it enjoys today by rolling over in the face of adversity. Microsoft executives “aren't sitting on their laurels; they see the threat,” according to Lee. “They see a future revenue stream in web advertising and desktop search functions and in better knowing the consumer. So they are organizing their own formidable brainpower to attack the competition. And there are plenty of people who like Microsoft and its products just fine.”

“If you ask me why I didn't buy Google shares at the IPO, I'd say Google at the time had one product — its search engine,” says Amit. “As it expands its base, it might harm Microsoft. But Microsoft has a much broader product line. It's sitting on 90% of all computers around the world and Google has a long way to catch up.”

Marketing professor Peter S. Fader says Google's threat is a tune Microsoft has heard before. “It's history repeating itself over and over and over. Every time a new threat emerges to Microsoft, people think, 'Oh, this is it — the one that's going to knock Microsoft off the block.' There's no reason to believe it will play out any differently this time. Google is a different kind of competitor, but Microsoft has dealt with a pretty wide range of competitors before. It's a tortoise-and-hare scenario. And Microsoft is a very good tortoise. What the company will do is figure out a way to replicate the features of competitors' products. The products won't necessarily be better, but they will be adequate.”

Whitehouse suggests that Microsoft may have to change its philosophy if it truly wishes to compete with Google. “Microsoft has tremendous resources, and it performed a similar turnaround once before when it took on Netscape in the 'browser wars' of the late 1990s. Microsoft, however, tends to focus on stopping the onslaught of the web — which it did very well with Internet Explorer in the late 90s — but then falls back and refocuses on its core operating system and desktop application businesses. So, for example, in recent years we've seen a major push to develop Vista [the long-delayed operating system, once code-named Longhorn, that is scheduled to replace Windows XP in 2006], but there have been no major new improvements in Internet Explorer in years.

“It's not clear how much Microsoft actually believes that the web is the platform of the future. After conquering its immediate adversary, the company tends to retrench and fall back on developing its core assets. That may work again this time. But, eventually, it may not be enough to forestall the Internet tidal wave that will eventually arrive.”

Consisting of two regions separated by some 640 miles of the South China Sea, Malaysia is a federation of 13 states and three federal territories. It is one of the region's key tourist destinations, offering excellent beaches, brilliant scenery and spectacular wildlife.

Ethnic Malays comprise some 60% of the population. Chinese constitute around 26%; Indians and indigenous tribes make up the rest. The communities coexist in relative harmony, although there is little racial interaction.

Although since 1971 Malays have benefited from positive discrimination in business, education and the civil service, ethnic Chinese continue to hold economic power and are the wealthiest community. The Malays remain the dominant group in politics while the Indians are among the poorest.

Malaysia's economic prospects remain relatively good. It is among the world's biggest producers of computer disk drives, palm oil, rubber and timber. It manufactures a "national" car - the Proton - and its tourism industry retains considerable room for expansion.

But it also faces serious challenges - politically, in the form of sustaining stability in the face of religious differences and the ethnic wealth gap, and, environmentally, in preserving its valuable forests.

Malaysia's human rights record has come in for international criticism. Internal security laws allow suspects to be detained without charge or trial.

Syed Sirajuddin Syed Putra Jamalullail was installed as Malaysia's 12th king during a glittering ceremony in 2002.

King Tuanku Syed Sirajuddin

He is the traditional ruler of Malaysia's smallest state, Perlis, a rural province in the far north bordering on Thailand. He is a former student at Sandhurst military academy in Britain and a keen supporter of Tottenham Hotspur football club.

The king's role is largely ceremonial, although he is nominal head of the armed forces and all laws and the appointment of every cabinet minister require his assent.

Under Malaysia's constitutional monarchy, the position of king is rotated every five years.

Malaysia's first prime minister, Tunku Abdul Rahman, himself a prince, devised the system after independence in 1957 to spread power among the sultans and rajas who had ruled over fiefdoms on the Malay peninsula for hundreds of years.

Prime minister: Abdullah Ahmad Badawi

Abdullah Ahmad Badawi succeeded Mahathir Mohamad as prime minister in October 2003, when Asia's longest-serving elected leader retired after 22 years in power.

Malaysian Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi

Mr Abdullah is a former deputy premier who held defence, foreign affairs and education portfolios under Dr Mahathir. He promised to continue the policies of his predecessor.

On taking office he faced a strong political challenge from opposition Islamic fundamentalists and inherited the task of overseeing one of the region's most vibrant economies.

In March 2004 Mr Abdullah was sworn in for a new, five-year term after his coalition government won a landslide victory in parliamentary and regional elections. Correspondents said the victory boosted the prime minister's chances of pushing through his package of reforms, including a promise to stamp out corruption.

In contrast to his predecessor, Mr Abdullah has been described as self-effacing. He has been called the "Mr Nice Guy" of Malaysian politics.

Mr Abdullah was born in 1939 in Penang. His father was a founding member of Umno, Malaysia's ruling party. After gaining a degree in Islamic studies he worked in the civil service before being elected to parliament in 1978.

Malaysia has been ruled by a coalition, the National Front, since independence. The United Malays National Organisation (Umno) is the biggest grouping in the alliance, which includes Chinese and Indian parties.

Malaysia has some of the toughest censorship laws in the world. The authorities exert substantial control over the media and restrictions may be imposed in the name of national security.

The government is keen to insulate the largely-Muslim population from what it considers harmful foreign influences on TV. News is subject to censorship, entertainment shows and music videos regularly fall foul of the censors, and scenes featuring swearing and kissing are routinely removed from TV programmes and films.

The TV sector comprises commercial networks and pay-TV operations. Around a quarter of TV households subscribe to the Astro multichannel service. A second pay-TV operator, MiTV, launched in 2005. TV3 is a leading national private, terrestrial broadcaster.

State-owned Radio Television Malaysia (RTM) operates two channels and many of the country's radio services. Private stations are on the air, broadcasting in Malay, Tamil, Chinese and English.

Newspapers must renew their publication licences annually, and the home minister can suspend or revoke publishing permits.

Some web sites, such as Laman Reformasi, close to former deputy prime minister Anwar Ibrahim, freeMalaysia or Malaysiakini, have come in for official criticism.

Many IT professionals ask me when Linux will finally "make it" on the desktop. How will they know when Linux has made it? What's holding it back? In what ways is Microsoft working behind the scenes to inhibit the adoption of Linux desktops?

John H. Terpstra

For some time, I have pondered and researched these questions. Then, a recent experience lifted the clouds of uncertainty. In part one of this column, I'll relate a true story of two Linux desktop purchasers who ran into multiple roadblocks. Then, in part two, I'll analyze those problems and discuss how Microsoft and electronics manufacturers and retailers created them. Finally, in part three, I'll predict a future that could happen, one in which a monopoly leads the U.S. IT industry to second-class citizenship, and the opportunity that could change that scenario.

Most people think that application availability drives adoption of a computing platform. While applications are very important, there are more factors at work, as the following story of two Linux newbies demonstrates.

A recent adventure

Recently, Joe purchased a new laptop computer. Because he had an older laptop that still functioned more or less adequately, he decided to purchase a machine that had Linux installed from the factory. He had heard that Linux does not suffer many of the problems with viruses, worms and malware, and his Norton AntiVirus subscription had expired, so there was nothing to lose in trying Linux.

Joe figured that since Linux is free, the cost of a laptop computer pre-loaded with Linux would cost less than one that shipped with Microsoft Windows. Wrong! The cost estimates he came up with were between $300 and $500 more for a system with Linux than for one with Windows.

Joe did a Google search to find Linux on laptop suppliers and obtained five price offers. Many Windows laptop specials offered a free bundled LCD monitor or a free bundled printer. No such offer was found for a Linux pre-loaded laptop.

Although Joe could not understand why it should cost more to purchase a laptop that has no bundled licensed Windows operating system than one supplied with it, he decided that it made sense to purchase the lower-priced system and just junk the bundled Microsoft Windows XP Home Edition.

After shopping around, Joe stumbled across a sweet deal and purchased an HP Pavilion dv1000 laptop. Joe's friend Dennis was with him that day and was suckered into ordering a customized HP zv6000 series laptop direct from HP.

Both Joe and Dennis were determined to try Linux and agreed that if Linux is ready for the desktop, they were ready to climb onboard. Dennis' laptop arrived 10 days after Joe had gone home with his purchase.

Joe installed SuSE Linux 10.0, while Dennis purchased SuSE Linux Professional 9.3. Dennis chose the 9.3 because he wanted the 64-bit support that was available with the AMD Athlon 64 CPU. At the time, a 64-bit version of SuSE Linux 10.0 was not yet available.

Joe's installation of SuSE Linux 10.0 was an immediate success. The built-in PRO/Wireless 2200BG network card worked perfectly. Well, it had one little problem: If he pressed the built-in function key to turn off the wireless card, it would not restart without a reboot. Even so, the video card and LCD display operated at the full 1200x768 resolution. Another small problem occurred when Joe tried to use the built-in digital media slots. He found they did not work, but he figured that was a small sacrifice.

Generally, Joe was impressed. His HP DeskJet printer worked the first time he plugged it in. SuSE Linux 10.0 instantly recognized the printer, asked him if he wanted to configure it, and in seconds he was able to print a test page.

Dennis was not so fortunate. He has been unable to get X-Windows working. It seems that the video chip set is not supported in SuSE 9.3, and he has not been able to get the built-in Broadcom wireless card to function (not even with the ndiswrapper drivers).

Needless to say, Dennis is not a happy camper. He will most likely reinstall Microsoft Windows XP Home from the recovery disk that came with the system. He feels forced to use Windows and believes Linux is simply not ready for prime-time use. He has seen a sad outcome to a project that started with great promise and expectation.

The plot thickens

Joe was so happy with his new Linux laptop that he decided it was time to install Linux on his old Windows laptop. This laptop has no built-in wireless card, so he purchased a Netgear RangeMax Wireless Router with a Netgear RangeMax wireless PC card.

Joe's installation of SuSE Linux 10.0 on the old 15-inch Sony Vaio RPG600, 1.8 GHz P4 laptop was another flawless installation. The screen worked perfectly at 1600x1200 video resolution. Joe was delighted with his second Linux laptop.

Unfortunately, Joe's story now takes a bad turn. The Netgear RangeMax wireless card could not be recognized by SuSE Linux 10.0. Joe called Netgear, which explained that the company does not support Linux. Joe was told that Netgear had no plan to provide Linux drivers for Netgear RangeMax wireless cards.

After returning the Netgear wireless network card to the store, Joe purchased a Belkin Pre-N F5D8010 Notebook Network card. The new card was able to recognize that an Ethernet controller had been inserted into the computer, but it could not find a suitable driver. Joe then found out that Belkin does not support Linux and that no suitable driver is available.

Joe did an Internet search, which revealed that Belkin's wireless card chip set is manufactured by Airgo Networks Inc. He found a link on the Airgo Networks Web site that offered hope. (You can see why by visiting AirgoNetworks.com.) Alas, this was a blind alley, because the General Public License Linux package only contains open source software (OSS) that Airgo Networks has modified and for which it has made the source code available.

Joe felt that Airgo Networks should be commended for its honorable handling of OSS, but he still had no luck there. When he called the company, he found out that no Linux drivers will be available for the Airgo chip set until late 2005 or early 2006.

Joe went back to the store to return another useless wireless card. Not one wireless card that was on the shelves at CompUSA or Best Buy listed Linux driver support, so Joe gave up. That's right: Not one wireless card currently sold at CompUSA and at Best Buy mentions that it is suitable for use with Linux.

The good news is that there is one wireless card that does work with Linux. A friend gave Joe a Linksys Wireless-G Notebook adaptor V3.0 card that works perfectly in his Sony Vaio laptop with SuSE Linux 10.0.

Digging deeper

So Linux desktop computers cost more than Microsoft Windows PCs do, and it's hard to find devices and drivers for Linux. Is that such a big deal? Well, in this story of just two Linux PC buyers, such difficulties stopped one from using Linux and the other only succeeded by being very persistent. Multiply that by millions of PC users, and you have a big deal.

Joe had to pay for Microsoft Windows when he had no desire to use it, because he would have paid more for a machine without it. Why should consumers suffer cost increases to use a free operating system? Why are governments around the world so silent on this matter? Isn't it time for the consumer to be better informed of the graft and corruption in the IT retail industry?

There are layers upon layers of roadblocks being placed in the path of Linux. In the next installment, I name some of those participating in the blockade and how they're hurting consumers and businesses.

The open source software (OSS) movement started as a result of dissatisfaction with the proprietary software world. It is a global initiative that is correcting a seriously broken system in which vendors are taking undue advantage of consumers and depriving the consumer of choice.

Clearly, many players in the IT world have roles in blockading Linux. In part one of this column, I described the barriers placed before Linux adopters Joe and Dennis. Let's drill deeper and find the roots of this anti-Linux conspiracy.

PCs for the rich only, thanks to IP laws

The IT consumer market caters to a mere 10% of the global population. Unix and Linux are the only platforms that provide desktop support for many countries and languages that would otherwise not be able to use modern computing tools in the consumer's native language character set. Most consumer software available in the world today is suitable only for use in English-speaking parts of the world.

So-called intellectual property (IP) protection keeps software in the English-only category. Proprietary licenses built on IP laws make it unprofitable to create software for minority language areas. In other words, there are some customers that the incumbent solution providers do not want.

Non-proprietary, low-cost OSS could bridge the commercial chasm between profitable and unprofitable markets. To make this happen, however, the companies selling IT products to the masses worldwide need to support Linux and OSS. Also, the interoperability problems presented by proprietary devices, drivers and software need to be erased. Otherwise, every OSS user could face the problems that plagued Joe and Dennis.

Who isn't onboard for widespread access to PCs & IT?

Despite the illusionary problem of commercial viability for commercial software vendors, there is a deeper problem in the IT industry. It's apparent that the commercial IT retail market has no desire to provide real consumer choice. Let's look at the situation:

CompUSA, Best Buy, Circuit City, Fry's Electronics and other major consumer electronics retailers do not offer Linux pre-loaded PCs for sale. These stores do sell some PCs that will work with Linux, if consumers download Linux themselves; they only sell PCs bundled with Microsoft and Apple operating systems.

Stores could sell a lower cost desktop, or laptop, computer at a lower price and with higher margins, thus making it possible to attract a larger consumer base into the active market. Why are these retailers not interested in doing this?

A desktop computer can be purchased for as little as $400. A laptop computer can be purchased at a price point below $550. Linux is free. Microsoft Windows, coupled with its bundled software, must cost at least $40 per machine. So, if Linux were to be pre-loaded, the retailer could offer the device at the same price and make an additional 5% to 10% gross margin.

Obviously, there are forces at work in the IT industry that cause retailers to choose not to participate in being more profitable. These stores don't offer the consumer the choice of a desktop platform other than Microsoft Windows and Apple. Why?

The aforementioned stores don't carry peripheral hardware suitable for use with Linux. This forces the consumer who wishes to use Linux to shop elsewhere. Clearly, these stores have made a decision that they are not interested in having Linux users as customers. Why?

A few smart vendors offer limited support for Linux. Dell, Hewlett-Packard and IBM offer a very minor selection of laptop PCs, desktop systems and servers that are compatible with Linux.

If companies really seek to attract the largest number of potential consumers, why are their practices so restrictive? What commercial arrangements have been made behind closed doors so as to keep Linux out of the public eye?

Server, PC and peripheral hardware vendors today introduce products that lack any form of Linux support, thereby delaying the availability of Linux drivers for these products. Linux developers have to rush to build drivers after major vendors' products are first shipped. This is a major deterrent to Linux adoption by users, as demonstrated by Dennis having to revert to using Microsoft Windows.

How is it possible then for the consumer even to try Linux without significant added costs, and with radically limited choice of supported hardware?

A store manager of one of the major consumer electronics retailers told me that his store had received complaints from customers because it had sold a network card for which the Microsoft Windows driver had not been certified by Microsoft. When he contacted the peripheral hardware vendor/manufacturer in question, he was told that Microsoft certification for the driver would require a royalty payment to Microsoft. The royalty would add as much as to $10 to the cost of each unit sold.

There are no certification or license fees for Linux drivers. Assuming that Microsoft does charge a royalty or any type of certification fee, why do vendors choose to pay for the privilege of providing a driver for Windows, when there are no such costs for a Linux driver?

Linspire, take a bow

Michael Robertson, CEO of Linspire, deserves public credit for his initiative over the past few years to make Linux pre-loaded laptops and desktop PCs available in the retail channel. Wal-Mart was among the first to sell Linspire-equipped systems to consumers. It would be unjust of me to criticize the IT retailers and OEMs, without giving credit where it is due.

However, I am astounded that consumers know little about Linux, largely because they don't see Linux when they go shopping. It's not like Linux was born yesterday. Linux has a stable track record over 14 years, already accounts for up to 35% of the installed server operating system market and is ready for the desktop with many free desktop applications that outperform the Microsoft Windows platform equivalents. Linux makes it financially feasible for more people in the world to use modern computing tools.

The fact that Linspire's Robertson has had to fight, and fight hard, to convince a few retailers to carry Linux pre-loaded PCs is clear evidence of the stranglehold Microsoft has on that channel. Major retailers are not interested in giving customers a less expensive, more reliable PC platform. They more interested in not damaging the relationship with Microsoft. This layer of the anti-Linux movement has wide repercussions, as I'll discuss in the concluding installment of this column.

The open source software (OSS) initiative has already created a highly productive, globally supported alternative software platform. The choice of free applications for Linux is growing daily. Smart application software vendors are already reaping a financial reward from the sale of their applications. Companies that have not yet embraced OSS, by porting their application to Linux, are likely to go the way of the dinosaur.

Software vendors are getting onboard. Hardware vendors are playing on the sidelines, and electronics retailers are out in the peanut gallery, still hogtied to Microsoft. Considering this situation, I think it is time for Open Hardware Manufacturing (OHM) and for the creation of a new global IT solutions retail infrastructure. Yet, I fear that U.S. players are still making enough money from their Microsoft connections that they feel comfortable with the status quo.

It's a good possibility, however, that a new-styled OHM will emerge out of China, where labor costs are low, and the desire to forge ahead is stronger than it is today in America. I've heard rumblings that Chinese manufacturers might establish new retail operations throughout North America, Europe and Asia, resulting in even more of the U.S. domestic technology market being sacrificed to the scrap-heap of history. Consider this: China has already stolen the march on the U.S. textile industry.

Will China use Linux to kick some U.S. butt?

The question we must answer is this, "Will China be the hub of future IT innovation and consumerism?" If the answer is yes, Linux is the tool that is waiting for the right Chinese entrepreneur who has a vision for creating the future.

I do see some inkling that U.S. players will play the Linux/OSS card and do it well. I'll wager a bet that Novell understands the dynamics of the market. Novell purchased SuSE, a major Linux development house. Recently, Novell released OpenSuSE, which means that the professional Linux desktop is now free. Novell sells a fully supported version, but the core product is freely available from OpenSuSE.org. This is a smart and timely move.

If I understand Novell's strategy correctly and my anticipation of the market is correct, Novell is positioned for a meteoric rise. That success could come through local OHM regenerative growth. Or, Novell could even take advantage of the entry of Asian competitors, whose OSS/OHM- oriented consumer retail channel would make the advantages of OSS and Linux desktops famous.

Widespread adoption of Linux desktops and OSS is going to happen. It's going to happen with or without the help of U.S. IT vendors and electronics retailers. Surely, there must be someone in North America with the entrepreneurship, the vision and the determination to take advantage of this opportunity before it is too late. I cannot believe that the current consumer IT retail industry is willing to fall on its sword without reconnecting with a profitable and loyal customer base. I wonder who will step forward.

Users, IT pros: Speak out now

Consumers and IT professionals, this is your call to action. If you want freedom of choice, please write to the managers of your local electronics stores, advising them that you want the choice of Linux on your next desktop or laptop computer purchase. Tell the store manager that if they refuse to be more consumer choice oriented, you will no longer purchase from them. Retail stores value consumer feedback. The few store managers I polled told me that no consumer had ever requested a Linux system, and until at least a dozen do, it does not make sense to offer such systems.

Why should IT pros join this battle? Your users buy their PCs from retailers. If they're only familiar with Microsoft products, then you'll encounter great resistance to any effort bring the lower costs and greater reliability of Linux desktops to your company. Many of you have already fought and lost that battle … for the time being.

You and I are consumers. We have the right and the responsibility to make our wishes known. If enough consumers speak up, retailers will jump to attention faster than you can imagine.

Windows problems with viruses, worms and malware exist because consumers failed to tell Microsoft that they had had enough. Instead of making our dissatisfaction known to the company that could do most to solve the problem, we delighted in complaining to each other. Make your wishes known to your IT retailers now. Remember that your actions, when properly directed, can change the world.